NFL Week 17

Carolina Speed

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
5,873
What are the odds that in a league that is 70 percent black this obese, horrendously ugly turd would attack eight players that are all white? The DWF's will never see this angle, they are too busy enjoying their overpriced beers cheering for a team full of animals.


.....wasn't the attack on the GB center Evan Deitrich-Smith an attack on at least 8 white guys, (GB's offense). I said it then and I'll say it now, if I would have been there, I promise you I would have stomped Suh in the knee and started whipping his butt as best as I could. Being only 5'10, I would have to go low in either the knee or balls. I would have been like what Chuck Cecil was to hitting, I wouldn't have been in the league very long. I think I would have been in a fight every game if one of these idiots would stomp on me!

Well, when that happened no one came to Deitrich's defense. They, (all the white players) all just stood around!

Until some mean crazy white player in the mold of Romanowski, Butkus, or Alzado, or Conrad
Dobler, (does anyone remember him), steps up, this will continue to happen.
 
Last edited:

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,575
Location
Pennsylvania
Elroy Hirsch had 1495 receiving yards in a 12 game season for 1951. Charely Hennigan of the Houston Oilers set a record which lasted a long time with 1746 yards in 1961. He also had 1546 in 1964, both in 14 game seasons.

Lance Alworth's best year for San Diego was 1602 yards in 1965.

Alworth's 1,602 yards came on 69 receptions, an average of 23.2 yards per catch. He went over 1,000 receiving yards seven straight seasons with the Chargers in the 1960s and finished his career with 542 receptions for 10,266 yards and 85 TDs.

I noticed that the 12 second video of Patrick Jeffers' 90 yard TD catch against the Steelers that I posted here two years ago is no longer on YouTube; in fact there is no longer even a trace of Jeffers on YouTube that I can find.

Here's the best highlights video I could find of Lance Alworth, the AFL's best-ever receiver:

[video=youtube;TEZoneRiOxE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEZoneRiOxE[/video]​
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
It's just a matter of time before Suh picks on the wrong bull—or some teammate of the target steps in on the would-be victim's behalf—and just knocks Suh the f*ck out.

Most bullies are cowards (notice how Suh picks only on much smaller players who are not as likely to fight back, NOT because they can't fight back, but because they are too professional and sportsmanlike to do so), and even those bullies who actually don't mind an actual fight, someday they run into someone bigger and stronger and not willing to be stepped on.

Then they reveal their inner b*tch.

Suh appears to be one of those guys who is insecure and wants to have this reputation as a bad boy or a tough guy, like he wants to be an intimidator or something.

He certainly won't build up his reputation based on his SH*TTY performance as an actual athlete. Third or fourth tier player. Practice squad material, though in my opinion he's not good enough for the American pro level, even held to the generally atrocious standard of Black defenders today. He's probably good enough to be the front door security guard of some sleazy, loser butterface strip club in some middle of nowhere town. Or maybe he can be one of those semi-retarded custodians who gets a job out of pity in a big city.

He thinks he's ghetto, but if he tries to act ghetto in the WRONG ghetto, dude's not getting in a fight, he's getting SHOT.

So, based on his behavior, he is just a mindless, overpaid dumbass who thinks he's hard, and tries way too hard to come off as hard. But really, he's not as hard as he thinks he is, and if he thinks being a big fatass who outweighs normal people (because he's a big out of shape fat f*ck) will make him an actual gangbanger, he doesn't know sh*t about that either.

So, to summarize:

Suh = CRAP football player. Knows JACK about the street. Ergo, Suh = pointless human.

Why is this elephant turd in the league?

I don't watch films of the games but according to every expert in Detroit, Suh is the best defensive player in the game. Something about the other teams needing two and three guys to handle him which frees up other players. I cannot understand why he is considered so valuable because he's a tackle, and like most tackles doesn't rack up many good stats. He's just a big fat blob in the middle of the line.

Plus he's a constant penalty risk with his stupid behavior, however he is usually good about acting out when the game is out of hand one way or the other. The fans in Detroit have absolutely crucified Dominic Raiola for his 1 game suspension last week for his stomp of a Viking player and the fact that he missed the big Green Bay game. Now lets see what happens if Suh misses the playoff game.

Suh is projected to ask for JJ Watts type of money in the off season, and while that seems stupidly ridiculous to us here at CF, in the bizarro world of the NFL, he probably will get it. He is almost certain to leave the Lions as he is unhappy for some reason, most likely because he is a dick and will be unhappy wherever he goes.

He has been a locker room problem for the Lions for years, when he first came into the league he had a recliner installed in the film room so he could kick back while watching film, while the rest of the guys sat in the standard fold up chairs. The Lions couldn't get him to remove it so they got chairs for everybody. Stuff like that will make management glad to see him go.

I think Suh is liked because he's an actual african, speaks well and seems like a decent guy off of the field. This kind of stuff is enough to fool the white dumb asses that make up most of the country and nearly all of football management, media, and fans. People with any sense know better.
 

Extra Point

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
6,289
I don't watch films of the games but according to every expert in Detroit, Suh is the best defensive player in the game.

Anybody who thinks Suh is the best defensive player in the game is delusional.

JJ Watt is far and away a better player than Suh. Watt is in a different class than Suh.

The mainstream sports media is promoting Suh because they don't like the idea that the best defensive player in the league is white. So they want to promote a black as being Watt's equal or superior. That's why they want Suh to get as much money or more than Watt, this would "prove" that he's in Watt's class.

Any suggestion that Suh is as good as Watt should be laughed at.
 

BeyondFedUp

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
4,468
Location
United States
Anybody who thinks Suh is the best defensive player in the game is delusional.

JJ Watt is far and away a better player than Suh. Watt is in a different class than Suh.

The mainstream sports media is promoting Suh because they don't like the idea that the best defensive player in the league is white. So they want to promote a black as being Watt's equal or superior. That's why they want Suh to get as much money or more than Watt, this would "prove" that he's in Watt's class.

Any suggestion that Suh is as good as Watt should be laughed at.

For sure, and those media reporters are mostly in Detroit. If Suh were White he'd have been kicked out of the league long ago. He would be tried for hate crimes if the roles were reversed by race-whores like Sharpton and Jackson in a media frenzy somehow, someway, in some bezerk "civil" trial or something and every dumb asinine White would follow it like there's no tomorrow. All of Suh's victims were White, so the double-standard is obvious, to those of us that can think outside of the (idiot) box.
 

Leonardfan

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
24,587
In what may be a bit of good news if he gets the job the Raiders are going to interview eric mangini.
 

GiovaniMarcon

Mentor
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
1,231
Location
Westwood, California
Speaking of racist double-standards, if ANY Black quarterback (or athlete in general, nay, PERSON) received even a QUARTER of the hateful criticism directed at Johnny Manziel, well, you know the rest.

—and the masses will eat it up, as the easily-manipulated herd have always been wont to do.
 

Matra2

Master
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
2,337
Subway sandwich spokesman Suh wins his appeal so he'll play against the Cowboys this weekend. Look out Tony Romo.
 

Thrashen

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
5,706
Location
Pennsylvania
jaxvid said:
He has been a locker room problem for the Lions for years, when he first came into the league he had a recliner installed in the film room so he could kick back while watching film, while the rest of the guys sat in the standard fold up chairs. The Lions couldn't get him to remove it so they got chairs for everybody. Stuff like that will make management glad to see him go.

I hadn’t heard that story, thanks for sharing.

Last season, during the drama that Suh produced when he viciously cheap-shotted Viking OL, John Sullivan (white, of course) during low block on an interception return, Fox Sports’ Glazer reported the following about his ridiculous conduct in Lions practice…

“Even in practice, Ndamukong gives guys the business,” Glazer said during FOX’s pregame show on Sunday, via Pro Football Talk. “He’ll slam a guy’s head against the ground. He’ll stomp on a guy. He’ll take little shots at guys. And guys are concerned if he can’t control himself even in practice with us, how can he control himself against someone else’s jersey?”

As you mentioned, I'd be very surprised if they resigned this violent, bone-headed, roid-raging, unproductive buffoon.

Jaxvid said:
I think Suh is liked because he's an actual african, speaks well and seems like a decent guy off of the field. This kind of stuff is enough to fool the white dumb asses that make up most of the country and nearly all of football management, media, and fans. People with any sense know better.

Here is a story about one off-field incident from 2011..

passengers_ndamukong_suh_lied_about_car_accident.jpg


According to one of the passengers in Ndamukong Suh's car when the Detroit Lions defensive tackle hit a tree early Saturday morning in Portland, Ore., Suh lied to the police about the reason for the accident, the number of passengers in the car and the extent of the injuries one of them suffered.


ndamukong_suh_involved_in_portland_car_accident_no_injuries_or_impairment_reported.jpg
Just after the accident happened at approximately 1 a.m. Saturday, Suh told Portland police that he was passing a taxi cab when he lost control of his 1970 Chevy Coupe and crashed into a tree. He told police that nobody in the car was injured, and no tickets or citations were given.



But two people in the car have since spoken to Portland TV station KGW, and their versions of the accident and its effects differ quite seriously from Suh's version at the scene. As a result, the police report has been amended to include passenger injuries, the possible reason for the crash and the number of passengers in the car — from two to three.


"When the light turned green, he floored it," one of the passengers, who asked to remain anonymous, told KGW. "I just remember going so fast and it was violent and just getting thrown around like rag dolls."


The woman told KGW that she suffered several injuries in the crash: a cut eyebrow, a black eye and a cut lip that required stitches. A second passenger verified the woman's claims but did not speak on camera.


Suh called 911 after the crash (listen to the call here) and said "Yes, everyone is fine" when the dispatcher asked, "Are you sure you don't need an ambulance?" But the woman said that she asked Suh to call an ambulance. Suh refused and told the woman that she was fine. From the scene of the accident, the woman walked away from the car and asked her husband to pick her up. She then was driven to the Oregon Health and Science University for treatment. The insurance company initially refused to pay for her injuries, doing so only when the police report was amended to support her story.

The woman also said that nearly 50 people approached Suh's car after the crash and started taking photos. A witness named "Allan" spoke to KGW and said that the driver "floored it" when the stoplight at 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] and Burnside turned green. The witness said that it looked as if Suh was trying to "show off" with screeching tires, and he did not see any taxi cab.


When the woman in the car saw a television report about the crash on Sunday morning, she was upset because she felt Suh had lied to police, according to KGW.


However, local authorities told the station that despite the amended police report, there were no plans to issue any citations.


"At no point did anyone there tell an officer that he [Suh] was driving out of control," Sgt. Pete Simpson of the Portland Police Bureau told KGW. "The crash doesn't meet our threshold for investigation which is vulnerable road user, DUI, or serious trauma injury." KGW attempted to contact Suh, who declined to comment.

He likely lied because about wrecking his fancy little ******-mobile he was driving drunk, driving high, or both.

Mantra, this obese vermin is also a spokesman for Chrysler cars...

[video=youtube;eImJkzPza40]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eImJkzPza40[/video]
 

BeyondFedUp

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
4,468
Location
United States
I just listened to about 45 seconds of racist scumbag Nate Burleson totally defend scumbag Suh on this clip on nfl.com, so just try and tolerate this utter garbage:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000451968/article/ndamukong-suhs-suspension-reduced-to-70k-fine


I couldn't watch any more and closed the page out after 45 seconds. Now, just imagine if the roles were reversed, racially. Would any White get away with sticking up for a notoriously dirty White player? Nope! Suh is a dirtbag. Why aren't more msm even saying the obvious? Oh wait, Suh is a "good guy off the field", right? Pffft.

I hope Dallas kills the Lions and Suh is a non-factor. He shouldn't even be in the league.
 

wile

Master
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
3,054
I wouldn't be calling blacks "sub-human" that does us no good whatsoever. Maybe that type of language was politically and socially useful in 1960 (I doubt it though), but it merely isolates us and legitimizes the total scumbags who run the caste system as social control. To me it is quite obvious that a good many people know about the caste system, it is all but explicitly broadcast that a certain script must be adhered to in the sports rackets.

We are in a war dealing with legitimacy and sports is but one theatre of the conflict
 

wile

Master
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
3,054
As for Suh as a Packer fan I'm all for Suh since he will be a Capsucker in what I call the Randy Moss syndrome after his salary killed the Vikings.

If your enemy is de-legitimizing themselves let them and if you can assist them do so quietly.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,575
Location
Pennsylvania
I wouldn't be calling blacks "sub-human" that does us no good whatsoever. Maybe that type of language was politically and socially useful in 1960 (I doubt it though), but it merely isolates us and legitimizes the total scumbags who run the caste system as social control. To me it is quite obvious that a good many people know about the caste system, it is all but explicitly broadcast that a certain script must be adhered to in the sports rackets.

We are in a war dealing with legitimacy and sports is but one theatre of the conflict

:clap2: Exactly right.
 

Phall

Master
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
2,317
Location
not Brooklyn
I wouldn't be calling blacks "sub-human" that does us no good whatsoever. Maybe that type of language was politically and socially useful in 1960 (I doubt it though), but it merely isolates us and legitimizes the total scumbags who run the caste system as social control.

Well technically speaking, if we use the 'homo sapiens sapiens' classification as the benchmark for "human," there are different measurable levels of neanderthal ancestry through interbreeding (perhaps around 1%-4%) in contemporary populations. You'll run into various layers of PC screening in any biological science, such as whether races or species are social constructions. That neanderthals are less evolved than our modern "humans" is consensus; neanderthals were gravely impacted by serious climate change, which speaks to their undeveloped future time orientation in dealing with stark seasons.

So some humans are more "human" than others, and if you see a specific population group reliably behave in a rather... unrefined manner, the term "sub-human" might in fact be a perfect fit!

:police::wink::police:
 

dwid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
4,254
Location
Louisiana
Well technically speaking, if we use the 'homo sapiens sapiens' classification as the benchmark for "human," there are different measurable levels of neanderthal ancestry through interbreeding (perhaps around 1%-4%) in contemporary populations. You'll run into various layers of PC screening in any biological science, such as whether races or species are social constructions. That neanderthals are less evolved than our modern "humans" is consensus; neanderthals were gravely impacted by serious climate change, which speaks to their undeveloped future time orientation in dealing with stark seasons.

So some humans are more "human" than others, and if you see a specific population group reliably behave in a rather... unrefined manner, the term "sub-human" might in fact be a perfect fit!

:police::wink::police:
actually there is debate on how advanced Neanderthals actually were. Sub Saharan Africans are the only race to possess zero Neanderthal DNA with the highest concentrations being in European and Asian populations. I'm just guessing here, but I'm willing to bet that Neanderthal DNA is a good thing.
 

PHillisFan

Master
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
2,114
actually there is debate on how advanced Neanderthals actually were. Sub Saharan Africans are the only race to possess zero Neanderthal DNA with the highest concentrations being in European and Asian populations. I'm just guessing here, but I'm willing to bet that Neanderthal DNA is a good thing.

That is correct. Neanderthals were actually more intelligent than given credit for. Calling blacks sub-human or not would not make a difference. Trying to demonstrate civil discourse and respect to blacks on here is futile in the grand scheme of things. Any site that does not kiss black ass is seen as racist.
 

Carolina Speed

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
5,873
actually there is debate on how advanced Neanderthals actually were. Sub Saharan Africans are the only race to possess zero Neanderthal DNA with the highest concentrations being in European and Asian populations. I'm just guessing here, but I'm willing to bet that Neanderthal DNA is a good thing.


No debate here. Neanderthal's were more robust and stronger than any human today. They also had the capacity for a larger brain!

If you believe the creation story, actually humans have regressed, on a downward spiral. If your an evolutionist, you believe humans are improving.

Before the flood in the Bible, people as well as animals grew to massive proportions and would easily overpower the strongest of modern day humans.

Also, before the flood, people lived a lot longer some 300 to 900 years. There was no genetic loading or mutation and no rain and spread of carcinogens that cause Cancer. Kind of like a giant greenhouse.

This would be a great subject to talk about on a separate forum!
 
L

Lew

Guest
That is correct. Neanderthals were actually more intelligent than given credit for. Calling blacks sub-human or not would not make a difference. Trying to demonstrate civil discourse and respect to blacks on here is futile in the grand scheme of things. Any site that does not kiss black ass is seen as racist.
I agree, we're already seen as monstrous evil racists anyway
 

wile

Master
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
3,054
If spewing the "muds and ****s" rhetoric worked we wouldn't have a caste system in the least. In our conflict it is a battle for legitimacy not if you feel better for mocking the stupidity of some blacks or the venous behavior of some whites or jews via low rent slur. The PROPAGANDA is so obvious and so mandated by what passes for authority that it all begs to be mocked and ultimately being used against its advocates.

IMO we whites are not that far from dethroning our corrupt establishment.
 

Phall

Master
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
2,317
Location
not Brooklyn
Hey it was just my attempt at some humor, now we're well off topic in this thread. I agree that we're already 'beyond the pale' as a community; no amount of AmRen conferences and serious 2000-word essays will sway opposing ideologues, which is why I turn to The Daily Stormer for its uniquely unbiased journalism. That said, the language policy here is fine by me because it 1. encourages some substance in the posts and 2. inspires creative, hilarious synonyms and impressive, verbose tirades.

Anyway, I'm sure we can all agree that the more pressing issue is where exactly Bigfoot stands in the evolutionary hierarchy:
The Paradox of Neanderthals And Bigfoot

Is Bigfoot More Human Than Neanderthals Were?
By Dorraine Fisher -TCC Team Member​

From what I’ve read lately, it may be time to scrap most of our old beliefs about human evolution and open our minds to MANY new ones. As rumors swirl of Bigfoot being a primate that is more human than ape, new ideas develop about the human story every day. But I found none more interesting than theater and film director Danny Vendramini’s theories about Neanderthals that challenge some of the greatest minds in the scientific and anthropological communities in their traditional views of what Neanderthals must have looked like.
[video=youtube;mZbmywzGAVs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs[/video]
 

Old Scratch

Mentor
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
1,055
The problem with his ideas is that neanderthals were humans (just not homo sapien sapien) that we interbred with, and were removed only about 400,000 years. He seems to think that they are closer to a chimpanzee or a gorilla.
 

Carolina Speed

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
5,873
The problem with his ideas is that neanderthals were humans (just not homo sapien sapien) that we interbred with, and were removed only about 400,000 years. He seems to think that they are closer to a chimpanzee or a gorilla.

Another problem is that evolutionists always take out the possible existence of God. They're always changing the way evolution occurred, but God doesn't change. He made humans and animals different. There was no evolution from primates to man!

However, humans were different pre-flood, very different from modern man. People who don't believe in a God never take that into consideration!

Again, I know we've had evolution/creation discussions before, but someone start this in a separate forum. It would be great discussion. On Happy Hour or something.
 

Old Scratch

Mentor
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
1,055
Well, duh.

There's "God did it." And then there's the analysis of actual evidence which while of course open to interpretation that is sometimes, perhaps too often, politicized and nebulous, is still usually a sight more convincing.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,575
Location
Pennsylvania
Take discussion about evolution and religion to Happy Hour.
 
L

Lew

Guest
It's good to see you post again Old Scratch. And since we're on the topic of striving for legitimacy then the lurkers here should know that not all of us are creationists and we don't consider the bible to be a book of science and history
 
Top